SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Cochlear Implants”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 397 records · Page 22Linked to original sources

PubMed1999

New window for cochlear implant insertion.

Nine patients with profound bilateral hearing loss received a cochlear implant via the middle fossa. Subjects presented with a bilateral radical mastoidectomy cavity, fibroadhesive otitis media, otosclerosis, autoimmune inner ear disease, previous cranial trauma and genetic prelingual deafness. A classic middle fossa approach was adopted. A small cochleostomy was performed on the most superficial part of the basal turn. A Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant system (Cochlear Corporation) was inserted in four patients, a Lauraflex implant (Philips Hearing Implants) in three patients and a Combi 40 + (Med-el) with double electrode array in two. The receiver-stimulator was positioned in a bone well drilled in the temporal squama and the electrode carrier was inserted in the fenestrated cochlea. Speech perception tests, performed over a period of time ranging from 1 to 6 months after cochlear implant activation, yielded better results than those obtained in postlingually deaf patients operated on via the traditional transmastoid route. Cochlear implant insertion via the middle fossa approach is a technique which is suitable for auditory rehabilitation of subjects with a bilateral radical mastoidectomy cavity, chronic middle ear disease, patients suffering from middle ear malformations, and patients with partial obliteration of the cochlea in the basal turn. However, the main advantage of middle fossa cochleostomy consists in the possibility of stimulating areas of the cochlea, i.e. middle and apical turns, where a greater survival rate of spiral ganglion cells is known to occur. This new approach led to major improvements in speech perception in all patients compared with patients operated on with the transmastoid approach and thus, given the present state of the art, it is the only approach which allows stimulation of the entire cochlea and enables the best auditory outcomes to be achieved in patients with a cochlear implant.

Adult↗

PubMed1997

The advanced Combi 40+ cochlear implant.

A 12-channel cochlear implant (CI) for high-rate pulsatile stimulation strategies is presented. Symmetric biphasic current pulses can be generated up to a maximum pulse repetition rate of 18.18 kpulses/second. The stimulation pulse amplitude can be selected within 1.5 microA-1.5 mA. Data and power are transcutaneously transferred using a single radiofrequency (RF) channel. A fully digital data transfer format is employed at an overall data rate of 600 kBit/second. The implant contains a single mixed analog/digital CMOS-ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Description) for data synchronization and stimulus generation. Stimulation signals are applied via a monopolar intracochlear multichannel electrode. Output capacitors for each channel are employed for safety reasons. A self-calibrating back telemetry system is included for estimating the channel impedances and field distribution along the electrode array. Dimensions of the ceramic package of the implant are only 33.50 x 23.40 x 3.95 mm3.

Cochlear Implantation↗

PubMed1994

Tinnitus suppression by electrical stimulation of the cochlear wall and by cochlear implantation.

Some recent studies have reported on tinnitus suppression by electrical stimulation of the cochlear wall and by cochlear implant. In the present study, the degree of tinnitus in cochlear implant candidates was determined and the effects of promontory stimulation and cochlear implantation on tinnitus were investigated. Of the cochlear implant candidates, all of whom were either severely hearing impaired or totally deaf, 87% experienced tinnitus. When electrical stimulation was applied to the cochlear wall (promontory stimulation test), tinnitus was abolished in 23% and improved in 46% of the patients. Thus, electrical stimulation of the cochlear wall effectively suppressed tinnitus in 69% of the patients. Following cochlear implantation, tinnitus was abolished in 35% and decreased in 42%. Thus, intracochlear electrical stimulation was effective for treatment of tinnitus in 77% of the patients. The suppression of tinnitus continued for several hours after the patients switched off the implant device. In 60% of the patients whose tinnitus was suppressed or abolished after the cochlear implant surgery, tinnitus was also suppressed in the contralateral ear.

Cochlea↗

PubMed2005

Perceived qualitative benefits of cochlear implants in children with multi-handicaps.

OBJECTIVE: To determine families' perceived benefits of cochlear implants in children with multiple-handicaps. METHODS: Parents/guardians of a child with a cochlear implant for at least 3 months, under the age of 18 years and had least one additional disability were recruited for participation through rehabilitation therapists. Families who did not have a child enrolled in therapy at the study center were contacted by mail. Families were asked a number of open-ended and close-ended questions. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed, with answers to open-ended questions coded by themes. RESULTS: We interviewed 19 families of 20 children and included 15 families of 16 children who had had at least 6 months of cochlear implant experience for this study. The mean time between implantation and study was 3 years (S.D.+/-2.2) with a range of 0.5-8 years. Children were highly compliant in wearing their device. Sixty-eight percent (11/16) of the children were enrolled in additional therapies beyond speech and aural rehabilitation therapies. Fifty percent of families (8/16) indicated they had no obstacles to accessing therapies. Insurance was the most common barrier to accessing therapies (18% of respondents). All children made communication progress post-implant as described by their families. All families felt that the cochlear implant team provided enough information prior to receiving the implant to help families make the appropriate decision about implanting their child. All families said that if they were to make the decision again, they would choose to have their child implanted. CONCLUSION: More children with multiple-handicaps are receiving cochlear implants. Very young children may undergo cochlear implantation only to be subsequently diagnosed with an additional impairment or disability at later ages. As a result, it is important to understand the specific needs of this population and the parental perceptions of benefit in order to provide the best services and opportunities for success with a cochlear implant. Although not all of the children gained gold standard speech and language outcomes, all children broadened their communication skills. In motivated families of children with additional disabilities, it is appropriate to provide them with the same opportunity to access audition and expand their communication abilities as any other child with a hearing impairment.

Awareness↗

PubMed2004

[Refractory recovery function of electrical auditory on the survival auditory nerve in cochlear implant recipients].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cochlear implant recipient's electrical auditory temporal properties in order to estimate the maximum stimulating rate which can be reached when they adopted some speech coding strategies based on time mechanism, such as continuous interleaved sampling (CIS). METHODS: Thirty-eight Nucleus CI24 cochlear implant recipients were divided into 4 groups by etiology and history. Their survival auditory nerve fibers' refractory recovery time function was measured via neural response telemetry (NRT). Electrical pulses with the amplitude of recipient's loudest acceptable presentation were stimulated in mono-polar mode, with the width of 25 microseconds and the frequency of 80 Hz. Least-squares regression procedures were used to fit individual recovery functions with the equation A = C + K e(-t/tau), in which tau is the time constant of recovery from refractory state. Statistic analysis showed the relationship between the time constants of individuals and etiology as well as electrode position in the cochlea. RESULTS: Congenital deaf patient's recovery time constants were shorter than that of postnatal deaf groups of ototoxicity (P = 0.0056) and large vestibular aqueduct syndrome (P = 0.0349). There was no significant difference between the recovery time constants of congenital deaf patients and those of group with long history of deafness. The ANOVA of the recovery time constants of 5th, 10th, 15th electrode showed no significant statistical difference (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The recovery time constants are related with etiology. In mono-polar mode, the time constants of congenital deafness or subjects with short duration of deafness are shorter than those of postnatal deafness or subjects with long duration of deafness. Time constants do not vary systematically with electrode location along the implanted array. The reciprocal of individual electrode seems to be used in determining the maximum of stimulating rate of CIS strategy and as criteria of choosing the usable channels from 22 electrode bands.

Acoustic Stimulation↗

PubMed2006

Comparison of self-esteem level of adolescents with cochlear implant and normal hearing.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the levels of self-esteem of adolescents with cochlear implants (before and after cochlear implantation) and the ones who have normal hearing. METHODS: For this purpose, Rosenberg self-esteem scale is applied upon the study group which consists of 30 adolescents with cochlear implant between the ages of 12-19 and upon the control group which consists of 60 adolescents having the similar characteristics. The scale is used to evaluate the level of self-esteem of adolescents with cochlear implant and with normal hearing. RESULTS: At the end of the application, the scores of these two groups which they got according to their answers were compared statistically. When the results were examined, there seemed to be no significant difference statistically between the self-esteem values of the cochlear implant group and the control group. Apart from this, there seemed to be significant difference statistically between the self-esteem values of the before cochlear implantation and control group. In this study, we examined changes in the level of self-esteem according to different variables. As a result, it was found out that in both groups levels of self-esteem was higher for adolescents who had had preschool education, had brothers/sisters, high level of income, whose mother was working and whose father and mother had higher levels of education. On the other hand, the birth sequence and the child's father's profession did not seem to have any effect on the child's level of self-esteem. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of these findings, it was thought that cochlear implantation had a positive effect on life quality and it was suggested that the adolescents and their families should get assistance from experts about the characteristics and principles of approaching the child in this period. The adolescent should be directed towards social activities and courses, their positive sides should be supported and further studies should be carried out with different case groups on this matter.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Combined microtia and aural atresia: issues in cochlear implantation.

OBJECTIVES: This article presents the first report of cochlear implantation in a patient with congenital aural atresia, microtia, dysplastic cochlea and internal auditory canals, and bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss (HL). This rare combination requires special management considerations. Preoperative issues include thorough evaluation of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging to determine favorable anatomy, cochlear implantation candidacy, and surgical planning. Intraoperative concerns include incision placement, surgical approach to the middle ear, and abnormal facial nerve anatomy. Postoperative use of a special headset combining a microphone and transmitter coil is required. STUDY DESIGN: Case report and literature review. METHODS: The patient's chart was reviewed for diagnostic studies, operative strategy, and postoperative auditory stimulation and testing. A literature review was performed. RESULTS: A 2-year-old male presented with bilateral aural atresia, microtia, and profound sensorineural HL. Imaging studies revealed multiple abnormalities of the cochlea, vestibule, and internal auditory canal, all of which were more favorable on the right side. An incision was designed to accommodate future microtia repair. The cochlear implant was placed without difficulty by way of a facial recess approach to the middle ear. Postoperative results include the detection of Ling sounds and voices in the environment as well as the ability to locate sounds. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of cochlear implantation in a patient with bilateral aural atresia, microtia, and profound sensorineural HL in conjunction with multiple inner ear abnormalities. Close collaboration among the otologist, neuroradiologist, and plastic surgeon is essential to coordinate surgical management and optimize cosmetic and functional outcomes in this unique population.

Child, Preschool↗

PubMed2004

[Rating evaluation of the effect of pre-lingual cochlear implanted's aural/oral rehabilitation by questionnaires].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of cochlear implanted's aural/oral rehabilitation using rating evaluation method by questionnaires, to analyze the relationship between rehabilitation effect and its possible influence factors including type of implant, age at surgery, pathology, etc, and to explore the rating questionnaire method for cochlear implanted's aural/oral rehabilitation effect evaluation. METHODS: Ninety-seven pre-lingual cochlear implanted's were involved in this investigation, all of which were severe or profound deafness before implantation. Interviewed the implanted's parents or teachers, asking them to rate the implanted's aural ability objectively from 1 to 8 according to Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP) and speech producing ability from 1 to 5 according to Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR), then analyzed the relationship between effect of aural/oral rehabilitation represented by CAP/SIR rating results and its possible 9 influence factors including type of implant, age at surgery, pathology, duration of hearing loss, hearing aid wearing, inserting length of electrodes, implanted period, rehabilitation mode and financial conditions. Univariate test and multivariate stepwise logistic regression model were used for the analysis. RESULTS: In a univariate analysis, it was confirmed that 4 factors i.e. type of implant (P = 0.0439), implanted period (P = 0.0001), rehabilitation mode (P = 0.0460) and financial conditions (0.0140) were correlated to CAP; 2 factors i.e. implanted period (P = 0.0001), rehabilitation mode (P = 0.0271) were correlated to SIR. In a multivariate analysis using stepwise logistic regression model, the more significant influence factor for CAP was implanted period and financial conditions, and for SIR was implanted period. CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implants will be more effective for aural/oral rehabilitation of implanted's with longer implanted period. Rehabilitation mode and method contribute to the effect of rehabilitation.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1996

Cochlear implantation in a pacemaker patient.

The authors present their experience with cochlear implantation in a 22-year-old patient who had a cardiac pacemaker because of complete atrioventricular block. The question of compatibility between the cochlear implant (multichannel Digisonic DX10AE) and the pacemaker (Biotronik Nanos-01AE) was raised. After consulting the two manufacturers regarding the risk of electrical interference, the authors decided to program the pacemaker in a locked mode (VOO) and then perform cochlear implantation. When the cochlear implant was switched on for the first time, electrocardiograms were obtained to ensure that the two devices were compatible. Absolutely no interference was detected. After a 3-year follow-up, cochlear implant performance remains excellent.

Adult↗

PubMed1989

Audiologic results following reimplantation of cochlear implants.

Five patients using cochlear implants experienced internal device failure 6 weeks to 4 years following implantation. All devices were removed and new electrodes inserted. Single-channel implants were replaced with multichannel systems in three patients, while the others received identical multichannel implants. The performance on a uniform battery of audiologic tests was the same or better with the second implant in all patients. Replacement of intracochlear electrodes did not induce clinically apparent degeneration of auditory performance in this series.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2006

Developmental delay and outcomes in paediatric cochlear implantation: implications for candidacy.

OBJECTIVE: Criteria for paediatric cochlear implant candidacy continue to evolve, as research indicates an increasingly broad range of children for whom the procedure can produce benefit. Children with difficulties in addition to their deafness, or global developmental delay, are not routinely excluded. The aim of this study is to explore the association between developmental delay in young paediatric cochlear implant candidates and progress with the device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is a retrospective case series analysis of 32 children, aged between 1.2 and 2.8 years at pre-implant assessment. Children were assessed using the Schedule of Growing Skills II and IT-MAIS before implantation. Progress in speech perception and Speech Intelligibility was monitored using the E2L toy test and Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR), respectively, 1 and 2 years after switch-on. RESULTS: Data were subjected to regression analyses, with either the E2L or SIR as the outcome variables, and variables derived from the Schedule of Growing Skills II (general development and cognitive functioning), IT-MAIS, age at switch-on and average aided hearing loss pre-implant as the predictor variables. In each analysis the strongest (and statistically significant) predictors of speech perception and Speech Intelligibility were the measures of general development and cognitive functioning, accounting for around 40% of the variance in outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study indicates the value of routinely assessing the general development of young paediatric cochlear implant candidates, as part of the pre-implant decision-making process. Significant developmental delay is predictive of poor outcomes, but children with a mild delay do make appreciable progress. Developmental assessment of young deaf children is therefore important in terms of candidacy decisions and counselling parents regarding potential benefit from a cochlear implant.

Cochlear Implantation↗

PubMed2004

Basic fitting and evaluation parameters of a newly designed cochlear implant electrode.

OBJECTIVE: To validate a newly designed cochlear implant electrode (TRACE) in the standard monopolar mode and compare it to a patient group implanted with a standard Nucleus Contour cochlear implant electrode. The electrode contacts of the TRACE electrode have the same active surface area for stimulation, but the position in the scala tympani is different from that of the Nucleus Contour electrode. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The following parameters, used in cochlear implant fitting and evaluation procedures, were determined: the threshold and comfort stimulation current levels; the electrode impedances; and the phoneme discrimination and speech recognition scores using the ACE speech algorithm. CONCLUSION: The new electrode does not differ significantly from the standard Nucleus Contour electrode in terms of the investigated parameters within the test group.

Acoustic Impedance Tests↗

PubMed1991

Inexpensive cochlear implant device.

We have developed a cochlear implant (CI) device modified from the House/3M cochlear implant device. The cost of raw materials was about $25. We used a new and simple technique for coating the implanted coil. We modified the circuit and removed the amplitude-modulated circuit. With this modification, the device uses less electricity and fewer transistors. There are slightly more than 3,000 patients using CI devices all over the world. Millions of profoundly deaf patients are poor and cannot afford the CI device that is now commercially available. Any university with well-trained otolaryngologists and physicists or electrical engineers can perform this technique.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Recent epidemiology of pediatric cochlear implantation in the United States: disparity among children of different ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Congenital severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is found in higher proportions of children with minority and/or lower socioeconomic status (SES). Cochlear implants were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in children with bilateral severe to profound SNHL in 1990. The objectives of the study were as follows: 1) to study the epidemiology of pediatric cochlear implantation, assessing whether cochlear implant technology is provided to children with severe to profound SNHL in proportion to their racial/ethnic or SES, and 2) to compare data provided by a national health care database with data provided by cochlear implant manufacturers. STUDY DESIGN: Patients aged 0 to 18 years who underwent cochlear implantation in 1997 using a cross-sectional study design. METHODS: Analyses were made of pediatric cochlear implant patients, using data from the 1997 Health Care and Utilization Project/Kids' Inpatient Database. Relative rates of implantation compared with rates of severe to profound SNHL were calculated using national estimates generated from census and Galludet Research Institution data. Logistic regression analysis was carried out to compare implanted children of different racial/ethnic backgrounds. A surrogate measure of socioeconomic status was used based on the median household income of the patient's home ZIP code. Information was also obtained from the two companies producing U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved cochlear implants in 1997 and used to determine whether the data obtained from the Health Care and Utilization Project/Kids' Inpatient Database were representative of the national cohort of implanted children. RESULTS: The Health Care and Utilization Project/Kids' Inpatient Database identified 124 children who underwent cochlear implant surgery in 1997. White and Asian children were implanted at higher rates than Hispanic and black children. Furthermore, white and Asian children received implants at greater rates than would be expected based on prevalence of severe to profound SNHL. The relative rate (RR) of implantation, defined as the proportion of children who received cochlear implants divided by the proportion of children with severe to profound SNHL (in each race/ethnicity group compared with the same ratio in white children), was similar in white (RR = 1.00) and Asian (RR = 0.93) children but markedly different in Hispanic (RR = 0.28) and black (RR = 0.10) children. Comparison of SES information from the Health Care and Utilization Project/Kids' Inpatient Database population with the manufacturers' database suggested that the Health Care and Utilization Project/Kids' Inpatient Database is representative of all implanted children in the United States. Both sources of information suggested that children receiving cochlear implants in the United States in 1997 resided in above-average SES areas. CONCLUSION: White and Asian children with severe to profound SNHL had higher proportionate rates of cochlear implantation than black and Hispanic children in 1997. Implanted children were more likely to live in areas (represented by ZIP codes) with higher median incomes. Although there was a disparity in rate of cochlear implantation based on race/ethnicity and surrogate measures of SES, these data did not allow the authors to determine the causes for these differences.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1993

[Multichannel cochlear implantation in a deaf child].

A multichannel cochlear implantation was performed in an 8-year-old child and the following results were obtained. The surgical procedures were not particularly difficult as compared to cochlear implantation for adults. Postoperative rehabilitation requires a longer time than in adult patients. Cochlear implants are useful not only for the recognition of environmental sound but also for the recognition of speech. Cooperation with the medical facility, as well teachers and family members, is essential.

Child↗

PubMed2003

The effect of large single radiation doses on cochlear implant function: implications for radiosurgery.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of large single doses of radiation on the function of a cochlear implant. A cochlear implant (Nucleus 24 k, Cochlear Ltd., Sydney, Australia) was implanted into a cadaver head and tested for functional changes following irradiation. Within 2 h, the device was given single fractions of 16.3 Gy, 6.2 Gy and 20 Gy with 6 MV photons. The size of the fractions was derived from maximum doses registered in linear accelerator-based radiosurgery of more than 300 patients treated for benign or malignant tumors at the Department of Radiation Therapy of the University Hospital of Freiburg. After each treatment an integrity test was performed testing the impedance and current output of the CI system. The total dose of 42.5 Gy caused no changes with regard to the tested parameters. The risk of implant failure seems to be low for Nucleus 24 k cochlear implants exposed to large single doses of radiation as used in radiosurgery.

Cadaver↗

PubMed2002

Paediatric cochlear implantation: prosthetic hearing and language development.

CONTEXT: Cochlear implantation offers hearing and vocational benefits to children and adults who lose their hearing after acquiring speech and language. But such implantations in prelingually deaf children are controversial, with concerns about diagnosis in very young children, safety, and durability. Implantation of children under age 2 years is potentially associated with higher surgical and anaesthesia risks, and with more challenging preoperative and postoperative management. STARTING POINT: Although only a small number of children implanted before age 2 have sufficient maturity and implant experience to undergo adult-type speech recognition tests, surgical series show that these children may be implanted safely and that their subsequent speech perception is at least as good as children implanted at an older age. The Nottingham, UK, group recently reported on a consecutive sample of 12 children aged under 2 years at implantation (Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002; 128: 11-14). S S Hehar and colleagues show satisfactory perioperative and postoperative surgical outcomes. 2 years after the implantation, mean scores on the Listening Progress Profile had increased from 1 to 42. Median scores of Categories of Auditory Performance increased from 0 to 5. There were no significant differences compared with a historical control group of deaf children implanted at ages 3-5. WHERE NEXT? Early results from parental observation of auditory behaviours show that children who receive a cochlear implant at an early age perform at least as well as those implanted later. These data, combined with more rigorous speech recognition results in older children, merit a gradual reduction in the age of implantation, although the uncertainties inherent in audiometric assessment and measurement of hearing-aid benefit in infants must be borne in mind. Cochlear implants in prelingually deafened children permit improved development of speech reception, language acquisition, and reading comprehension.

Child↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Predictors of cochlear implant performance.

Open set speech understanding with cochlear implants, without speechreading, is nowadays a common finding. However, there is a large variation in speech understanding between cochlear implant users. We tried to find pre-operative parameters which predicted the post-operative results. Thirty-seven adult post-lingually deafened Nucleus cochlear implant users with a mean age of 46 years (range 16 68) and a mean duration of deafness of 15 years (range 1.5-47) were studied. Pre-operatively, we performed pure-tone audiometry, round window and ear canal electrical stimulation, psychological tests and imaging. Additionally, we measured pre-operatively speech understanding in the auditory, the visual and the audiovisual conditions with several tests which were also administered after 6 and 12 months' implant experience. Correlation analysis between the pre-operative variables and the post-operative factors showed that duration of deafness and residual hearing are the most important predictors. The temporal difference limen in pre-operative round window electrical stimulation is a secondary predictor.

Adolescent↗